Abdullah vs A.Mydeen Madaar
2023 Latest Caselaw 3427 Mad

                                                                               S.A(MD).No.128 of 2023

                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 29.03.2023

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                 S.A.(MD)No.128 of 2023
                                              and C.M.P(MD)No.2730 of 2023
                     1.Abdullah
                     2.Chellaponnu @ Rahmath Jailani
                     3.M.Palkees Beevi    .... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants 1,3 & 4

                                                             Vs.

                     1.A.Mydeen Madaar
                     2.A.Kader Mydeen
                                     ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff & 2nd Defendant

                     Prayer :         Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
                     Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2022 passed in
                     A.S.No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai,
                     confirming the judgement and decree dated 06.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.
                     559 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai
                     Town.
                                            For Appellants     : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
                                            For R1             : Mr.M.Saravanakumar

                                                     JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent

findings of the courts below. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 in the suit in

O.S.No.559 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.128 of 2023

Madurai, are the appellants herein. The first respondent is the plaintiff in the

said suit and the second respondent is the second defendant in the suit. The

suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

evicting the first respondent/plaintiff from the suit schedule property except

by following due procedure established under law.

2. In the following paragraphs, the parties are described as per their

litigative status in the suit.

3. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiff has

claimed that he is in possession of the suit schedule property for a long

number of years. To prove his possession, the plaintiff has filed 19

documents before the trial court, which have been marked as Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.19. The defendants have filed 20 documents which have been marked

as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.20. But none of these documents disprove the contentions

of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is

settled law that a person, who is in legal possession in a property can be

evicted only by following the due procedure established under law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.128 of 2023

4. Based on the documentary evidence available on record, the trial

court namely the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, by its judgment

and decree dated 06.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.559 of 2010 has rightly

granted the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff in the

suit i.e to restrain the defendants from evicting him excepting by following

the due procedures established under law.

5. The lower Appellate Court namely the Principal Sub Court,

Madurai by its judgment and decree dated 23.03.2022 has also rightly

confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the first appeal filed

by the defendants.

6. There are no substantial questions of law involved in this Second

Appeal. If at all, the defendants claim ownership of the suit schedule

property, they ought to have filed the suit for recovery of possession from

the plaintiff. The plaintiff being in legal possession of the suit schedule

property, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit in his favour and

granted the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

evicting the plaintiff excepting by following due process of law. There are

no debatable issues of fact and law involved in this Second Appeal as the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.128 of 2023

contentions of the appellants that have been raised in the Second Appeal

have already been rightly considered by the courts below.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Second Appeal.

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, liberty is granted to

the defendant to seek for recovery of possession from the plaintiff by

establishing his title over the suit schedule property by filing a separate suit.

29.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No CM

To

1.The Principal Sub Court, Madurai,

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.128 of 2023

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

CM

S.A.(MD)No.128 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.2730 of 2023

29.03.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis